Jackie Blue’s valedictory speech

Dr Jackie Blue delivered her valedictory speech on Wednesday.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : When I completed my medical degree back in the early 1980s, neither I nor anyone around me could have predicted that I would end up in politics and then move on to be the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission. But life is full of twists and turns and, most important, opportunities, though we may not recognise them as such at the time.

The opportunity to get involved with the National Party came in 2001. When advocating for breast physicians, a role that I had pioneered in New Zealand, I had a chance meeting with Bill and Mary English. I became actively involved in the party in 2002, after the general election. It was an exciting time to get involved. The party was regrouping and reviewing its constitution. After the encouragement of the National Party leader at the time, Dr Don Brash, I put my name forward as a candidate in the 2005 election. I was truly delighted when I was selected to stand in the Mt Roskill electorate.

With my health background, I joined National’s health team. Tony Ryall was the health spokesperson. Tony was, and is, a great mentor. I know many of our colleagues were very envious. Tony put the health team to work, giving us a range of health responsibilities. I had the access to medicines portfolio and, because of my background, breast cancer – related issues.

While I was a new MP in 2005, Herceptin became high-profile, with many countries funding a 12-month course for a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer. It was being used for treatment in metastatic breast cancer in New Zealand, but the trials were showing that it was reducing deaths in early stage, newly diagnosed breast cancer. I am grateful that Tony gave me the opportunity to advocate for 12-months’ Herceptin funding for women with breast cancer in New Zealand.

I was extraordinarily proud when John Key made this a National Party election promise in 2008. One of the most marvellous memories from my time in Parliament is of a meeting shortly after the November 2008 election, when I joined Tony, who was the new Minister of Health, and key officials from the Ministry of Health and Pharmac. The meeting was to work through the logistics of ensuring that the women who needed Herceptin had access to it by Christmas 2008. The timing was very tight, but it was a case of Yes, Minister at its very best. Everyone worked together to ensure that the policy rolled out smoothly. With the results of recent trials, time has proved that funding 12 months’ Herceptin was the right decision. Twelve months is considered to be the international gold standard. For Pharmac to continue to financially support a trial that offers a 9-week Herceptin course is, in my opinion, dubious and possibly unethical.

In my first term of Parliament Tony Ryall and I had the opportunity to advocate for enrolled nurses. This iconic nursing workforce had been increasingly marginalised. They had been forced out of acute hospital services, with their training limited to the very narrow scopes of long-term care and rehabilitation, as well as having undergone a name change to nurse assistant. The name change was detrimental. The nurses felt demeaned, undervalued, and demoted. A concerning consequence was that the numbers of students in training dropped significantly. There were reports that it had caused a loss of confidence and confusion with the public and prospective employers.

The New Zealand Nurses Organisation took the case to the Regulations Review Committee, which did support that the enrolled nurse name should be retained. In late September 2008 the Government moved a motion in Parliament that required the Nursing Council to change the name. Expanding the role and training of enrolled nurses became a 2008 election commitment for the National Party, and when Tony Ryall became the Minister of Health he set about implementing that policy.

I really connected with the enrolled nurses’ story. They had faced ignorance and prejudice. Their battles had been my battles when I was establishing breast physicians in New Zealand. Regrettably, the number of breast physicians in New Zealand has not grown as it should, and it is my sincere hope that this will change as professional colleges accept the huge contribution that breast physicians bring to the multidisciplinary breast cancer team.

Early in 2008 I met with a group of refugee and migrant doctors who were meeting regularly at the Auckland Regional Migrant Service, or ARMS, in Mount Roskill. The group had been struggling to get registration with the New Zealand Medical Council. They were frustrated that we did not have a bridging programme like Australia had. Over several years they had made successive approaches to health Ministers without getting any traction. They were meeting regularly at the Auckland Regional Migrant Service to study and to support each other, and I would like to acknowledge the amazing support that Dr Mary Dawson and Anna Fyfe-Rahal from the service have been providing to this group. Without their support and encouragement, I am quite sure that this group would have disbanded long ago.

My heart went out to these doctors. After the election I re-established contact with the group and began to meet with them each month. I went back to Tony Ryall and I said that we simply had to do something for them. Tony was very supportive and agreed that I could start investigating options, and I began discussions with the Ministry of Health and the Medical Council. However, when Professor Des Gorman, chair of Health Workforce New Zealand, got involved in the latter part of 2009, the project developed a momentum all of its own. The NZREX preparation placement programme began in 2011 and has been hugely successful, with 33 out of 38 migrant doctors passing the Medical Council registration exam. This programme has been truly life changing for those doctors and their families.

The public would be very interested to know that our Parliament exists in an alternative reality. This parallel Parliament is full of cross-party committees and friendship groups. It is a place I have inhabited since I have been an MP. It is a happy place. It is a place where MPs work collaboratively towards common objectives. I have found it immensely satisfying and stimulating. I recall a retired senior National Minister telling me that one of the most satisfying times of his career was when, as a result of a crisis, Government and Opposition MPs worked together to broker a solution. Of course, I knew exactly what he was talking about because this is my experience in the cross-party groups. The thing is, you do not need to wait for a crisis. The chance already exists.

The opportunity to chair three cross-party groups has been truly life changing for me. All three groups—the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, or NZPPD, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, or CWP, and Parliamentarians for Global Action, or PGA—have a strong human rights focus. The New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, in particular, specifically focused on women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, domestic violence, and our overseas aid in Pacific countries. The Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group is focused on improving the number of women in Pacific Parliaments. I co-chaired with Louisa Wall. The Parliamentarians for Global Action group has a strong focus on human rights, the rule of law, the International Criminal Court, gender, and democracy.

It has been the work of these committees that has left me utterly convinced that society must back its women and girls. Women make up one-half of the world’s human capital. No society can achieve its full potential when half the population is denied the opportunity to achieve theirs. Empowering and educating women and girls are fundamental to succeeding and prospering in the ever more competitive world. This is particularly true in developing countries, but it is also absolutely relevant in developed countries like New Zealand. As women progress, everyone in society progresses, including men and boys. Tapping into the potential of women and girls is not only the right thing; it is the smart thing. Sexual reproductive health and rights and education go hand in hand. When women have the opportunity to control their fertility and have access to reproductive health services they are more likely to stay in education, get employment, and provide for their families. Education leads to more choices and opportunities.

The cross-party groups that I am involved with are very excited about the Pacific Leaders Gender Equality Declaration that our Government signed along with other Pacific Parliaments last year in Rarotonga at the Pacific Islands Forum. All leaders—and that includes Australia’s and New Zealand’s—have agreed to implement specific national policy actions to progress gender equality in the areas of Government programmes, decision making, economic empowerment, health, education, and ending violence against women. The leaders agreed that progress in these areas should be reported on at each forum leaders meeting by way of a performance-monitoring framework. We are all looking forward to having a robust measure by which we can track New Zealand’s progress in gender equality.

We are a House of Representatives, but, unfortunately, as it is, we do not truly represent all New Zealanders. If our Parliament perfectly represented our diverse society, we would have eight Pacific MPs; we have five. We would have three Indian MPs; we have two. We would have eight Asian MPs; we have three. We would have one Middle Eastern, Latin American, or African MP; we have none. We would have 18 Māori MPs. We are doing well in this area—we have 22. And, of course, 50 percent of our MPs would be women. The fact is that only 33 percent are women MPs. This is unacceptable in the 21st century. We can, and we must, do better.

I am very appreciative that Maggie Barry will be taking over my member’s bill, the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, which proposes to change the Marriage Act such that minors—16 and 17-year-olds—who wish to marry would need to get the consent of the Family Court. The current situation is that minors require only parental consent. This bill arose out of the concern that some minors, predominantly young girls, are being coerced into marriage. I was very grateful that Judith Collins came out in strong support of this bill. In December last year an inter-agency response for victims of forced marriage in New Zealand was agreed upon to enable agencies to work together to support these young, vulnerable victims.

On a personal note, I would like to thank Judith for the support she gave me when I made the decision to promote the Shine organisation helpline by going public with my own experience of domestic violence. Thank you, Judith. She was, and is, a tower of strength.

I have talked a lot about opportunity, and I am so grateful that I have had the most extraordinary opportunities as an MP. I am tremendously excited about my new role as Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. I would like to acknowledge the former commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor. Her work in this area has been simply outstanding. Prime Minister, you will be pleased to know that the equal employment opportunities in the workplace policy fits perfectly with the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. There is strong, irrefutable evidence that it improves productivity and innovation. Our future workforce will be increasingly diverse, and the fact is that it is in our best interests to manage it well. Equal employment opportunities policy is mandated in the State sector, but it needs to become part of normal practice in the private sector. Indeed, many successful New Zealand businesses cite equal employment opportunities policy and practice as giving them the competitive edge.

There are many people to thank. My gratitude goes to my team in Mt Roskill, the northern region National Party, and all the volunteers. I would particularly like to make a special mention of Ram Rai and Jim Stephens. My sincere thanks go to my parliamentary staff, Denise Tustin and Kristin White, who have given me the most wonderful support. I would like to thank all the parliamentary staff who keep this place functioning, particularly the Parliamentary Library and the travel centre, which provide amazing service. I would like to thank my taxi drivers Stefan—also known as the “Silver Fox”—and Artur, who got me safely and on time to many engagements.

Thank you to the “class of 2005” MPs for the wonderful friendship and support you have given me. It is something I will always treasure. Thank you to my friends who have made the special journey here to Wellington—and, on a special note, thank you to Mark, Karen, Spencer, and Nicholas Withers. My heartfelt thanks go to my husband Dave Miller and my beautiful daughters Jess and Paddy, whom I am just so very proud of. I honestly could not have done any of this without you being solidly by my side.

My husband Dave has a building background, and each election year he was in charge of hoardings. Dave has become quite famous in the northern region. The hoardings structures he built were indestructible. No matter if an Opposition hoarding built our one out; Dave would just rebuild ours taller than before. They were creatively built, and absolutely straight, as Dave insisted on a spirit level. I am sure many should have had a resource consent. I have always said that if I could leave Parliament with my family, health, and reputation intact, I was doing all right. I like to think I have achieved that.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his leadership over the last 4 years, which have been extremely tough. The economic recovery has had to take centre stage. There has been no one better placed to lead this recovery than you, Prime Minister. I am very proud of the National Party. I am proud that the vision and values of this party were founded on a strong human rights framework. The right to be safe, to have equal opportunity, to be free, and have choice are all fundamental freedoms. They remain as true today as they did 75 years ago when the party was formed. I wish you all well. Thank you.

Parliament Today has the video.

 

 

 

Blue Budget

Today’s Budget is a blue one, literally and figuratively.

It’s got a bright blue cover and it will be one which is written with the understanding of the importance of sound financial management.

Finance Minister Bill English was looking cheerful in his pre-Budget interviews yesterday and he deserves to.

In spite of the woeful state in which Labour left the economy, and the natural and financial crisis with which the government has had to deal, National has done what it said it would.

It took the rough edges of the worst effects of the recession, reduced the cost of government while maintaining services and has on back on track to surplus in the next financial year.

Only the blinkered would believe that this would have been possible with a red or a red/green budget.

The government is launching an update of its Budget app for smartphones and tablets with interactive features that allow users to see how much tax they pay and how their tax dollars are spent.

It went live at 2pm as the Budget delivery began.

You can find it here.

No consensus, no change

One of the arguments used to urge people to vote for a change in the electoral system was that it was the only way we’d get a second vote.

They’ve been proved right.

Justice Minister Judith Collins says since there’s no consensus there will be no change.

In November last year, the Electoral Commission released its review of the Mixed Member Proportional system, estimated to have cost $1.6 million.

It recommended dropping the party vote threshold from 5% to 4% and scrapping the “coat-tails rule”, which would stop a party that won an electorate seat bringing in extra list MPs unless it reached the party vote threshold.

However Ms Collins says the changes would have been significant, and can not be done without widespread support.

On the coat-tails rule, Ms Collins told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report that five parties want to keep the status quo and three want it abolished, so there are major differences of opinion.

“Law changes in this country require 61 votes to get through Parliament. I don’t have 61 votes to bring forward the law changes suggested by the Electoral Commission. It’s as simple as that.”

It’s not just that law changes require 61 votes, it’s that major constitutional changes should either have the support of at least 75% of parliament or be put to the people in a referendum.

Had a majority of people voted for change in  2011 there would have been a review of MMP and we’d have got to vote between the modified version of the current system and the most preferred alternative next year.

A majority voted for the status quo, there’s been a review but there’s no consensus and so there will be no change before next year’s election.

It would have been better for the review to have been carried out before the referendum then we’d have all known exactly what we were voting for.

As it was some people who supported MMP might have supported it as it is and others as they’d hoped it would be after the review.

LabourGreen might decided to campaign on the issue and promise to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.

But even if they win the election they won’t be able to claim a mandate for change.

They’ve put so much energy into saying National campaigning on the partial sale of a few state assets and winning the election didn’t give them a mandate, they won’t be able to claim campaigning on the electoral system and winning would give them a mandate.

Making a positive difference

It’s a political truism that governments get criticised for anything they do wrong, or don’t do at all, but are rarely acknowledged for what they get right.

 

Under National:

* We’ve got the lowest increase in the cost of living since 1999.

* Mortgage rates are the lowest since 1965 – that’s significantly more left from most people’s pay packets each week.

* After tax wages have increased 22% since 2008 – more than twice the rate of inflation – superannuation is based on after tax wages so pensioners have been getting more too.

These are all the more noteworthy when they’ve happened in the face of the global financial crisis.

They’ve also happened with no increase in government spending.

Those on the left want the government to take more and spend more. That’s just churn.

It’s far better to reduce the burden of the state and leave people with more money in their own pockets.

In praise of VSM

Opponents of Voluntary Student Membership predicted the sky would fall if people weren’t compelled to join students unions.

It hasn’t and here’s proof of its benefits.

It enabled some Young Nats to choose to join the Otago University Students Association and then use the OUSA van to get to the National Party’s Mainland conference in Hanmer at the weekend.

They’re pictured here with two of the MPs who voted in favour of VSM – Prime Minister John Key and Waitaki MP Jacqui Dean.

Labour is anti-growth party

What’s the difference between the National and Labour parties?

There are plenty but the most stark is their attitudes to growth.

National is pro-growth and has spent the last four years implementing policies which will promote it.

Labour has spent the last four years opposing those policies and is, as Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says,  fast becoming the Anti-Growth Party by pursuing polices that would hurt households and damage the New Zealand economy.

“What has become increasingly clear is that intentionally or unintentionally, Labour is promoting policy ideas that would stunt New Zealand’s growth. On top of that they are opposed to all initiatives that would create jobs and boost incomes. They are becoming the ‘Anti-Growth’ Party’,” Mr Joyce says, speaking today at the National Party’s Mainland Regional Conference in Hanmer Springs.

 

“They want to introduce a capital gains tax on every business and farm, print money to lower the dollar, force households to pay an extra $500 a year under the ETS and spend and borrow more money. In their rush to appeal to the political left and scratch every political itch, they are ignoring the economic impact of their ideas.

 

“Their latest ‘plan’ on electricity is playing politics with the value of New Zealand’s economic assets and they don’t care who it affects. They clearly haven’t thought through the consequences of discouraging investment and savings to both KiwiSavers and jobs, all for a policy that pretty much everyone agrees won’t work.

 

“It is becoming obvious that under the influence of Grant Robertson and David Parker – and the threat of the Greens – Labour has shifted further to the left. More middle-of-the-road MPs like Shane Jones are now isolated and forced to recite the new anti-growth party mantra of saying ‘no’ to every idea to boost growth.”

 

Anti-growth Labour policies include:

 

• Dramatically increasing the effects of the ETS on trade-exposed businesses and New Zealand households

•  Introducing a capital gains tax on all productive businesses

•  Abandoning sensible monetary policy in an attempt to force down the value of the New Zealand dollar

• Nationalising the power industry and discouraging investment in the New Zealand economy

• Borrowing more money rather than having the Government make savings and get back into surplus

 

Policies Labour has rejected that will boost investment and growth include:

 

• Resource management law changes to speed up investment decisions

• Plans to build an International Convention Centre in Auckland (despite supporting a similar arrangement in 2002)

• Oil and gas exploration on the North Island’s East Coast

•  Investment by Chinese companies, including the investment by Haier in Fisher & Paykel Appliances

• Encouraging more international investment generally

• Reforms to allow greater aquaculture development in the Marlborough Sounds

• Speeding up Bathurst Resources consents at Denniston

•  Increasing irrigation and agricultural intensification

 

“The National-led Government is encouraging more investment in New Zealand as we know that nothing creates jobs and grows incomes for New Zealand families better than business growth,” Mr Joyce says.

 

“Labour has talked a lot in the last four years about savings, jobs and growth.  If they are serious about those things they need to start showing it. They need to support sensible initiatives that will encourage investment, create jobs and help New Zealand families get ahead.

 

“Constantly adopting policies that discourage investment, and also saying ‘you can’t do this and you can’t do that’ shows Labour is fast becoming the Anti-Growth Party, joining the already anti-growth Greens on the far left of New Zealand politics.”

The Green Party has never made any secret of its disdain for economic development. Labour used to pretend it was interested in growth.

But in abandoning the centre ground and lurching leftwards it has given up the pretence it is economically rational and wants a growing economy.

Some commentators say this more united LabourGreen approach will help them look more like a government in waiting.

That might be so but it will also scare the moderate swinging voters in the centre. Given the choice between extreme-left, anti-growth Labour Green and moderate centre-right National they are much more likely to tick blue rather than red and green.

National would reverse LabourGreen power play

If LabourGreen win the next election and manage to implement their power play promise, it won’t be for long.

Prime Minister John Key told the National party’s Mainland conference yesterday that if National lost next year’s election the party would reverse the LabourGreen power policy as soon as it got back into government.

That means there is almost no chance of the monopoly wholesale model being implemented.

That will be a relief to anyone worried about the prospect of insecure supply, rising costs and investment flight.

 

What’s the problem with welfare reform?

Labour and the Green Party are continuing to oppose National’s efforts to ensure the welfare system provides a safety net and not a hammock or a noose.

They try to pretend they’re helping the vulnerable but that’s just the soft bigotry of low expectations.

The welfare system should be ready and available for people in need.

For most that need is short-term and temporary, for a few it will be longer term and for some it will be permanent.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that those who can look after themselves do so and help those who could but don’t.

The opposition would prefer to keep people beholden to the state while National is working hard to help them become independent.

What’s wrong with this?

Too little regard for OPM

The NZ Herald points out:

The Government’s income tax take dropped from $30 billion to $25 billion as New Zealand dipped into recession, but new figures show local authorities increased their rates each and every year. So why are city and district councillors allowed to spend first, then go banging on ratepayers’ doors demanding the money to pay for their pet projects?

It’s far too easy for them:

What you pay in rates is largely determined by what your property is worth, but ratepayers should not assume that just because their latest home valuation goes up or down, their rates bill will follow. Councils still have to make the decision on what rates revenue they need – and then work out how to pay for it.

Imagine if you were able to manage your household budget that way. In your New Year’s resolutions, you might decide to build an extra bedroom, and take a holiday to Fiji. You’d work out how much money you would need – then you would go to your boss and demand that extra money as a pay rise.

In the real world, your boss would fall about the floor laughing.

But if you are a city or district councillor, you can insist ratepayers stump up the extra cash. Ratepayers’ only option is to grit their teeth, pay the bill – then sack their councillors at the next election.

Does it have anything to do with councillors’ ability?

There aren’t many jobs where someone with no financial knowledge or experience can walk in off the street and find themselves managing a multi-million-dollar budget. But being a councillor is one of them.

Councillors are not required to have any qualifications or credentials beyond the ability to win an election. That, says Massey University local government specialist Dr Andy Asquith, may be why rates sometimes run awry. “The majority of councillors in New Zealand and around the world have trouble putting their shoes on the right feet in the morning. They get elected simply because they are known. It’s not unusual for someone to one day be reading the weather on television and the next to be on the local council with no knowledge of what council is about.”

Last year, a Massey survey found less than a third of councillors reported having access to governance education and even fewer had done that education. “I think that’s a major shortcoming in councils in this country.”

Sounds like a failing of the Labour Party too – far too heavy on union and public service experience, far too light on private sector experience and the knowledge and skills gained from putting their own money at risk.

The Labour Party and councils are top heavy with people who have far too little regard for OPM – other people’s money.

The National-led government has brought financial discipline to the public service and Local Government Housing Minister Nick Smith is now doing his best to ensure councils do the same when it comes to housing policy.

Books better than forecast

The government books are in a better state than expected:

Higher than forecast tax revenue continues to underpin an improvement in the Government’s finances, compared to the Half-Year Update in December, Finance Minister Bill English says.

The operating deficit before gains and losses for the eight months to 28 February was $3 billion, or $556 million smaller than the $3.6 billion deficit forecast in December.

“The other pleasing aspect of the financial statements is that government spending remains under control,” Mr English says. “That is important as we remain on track to surplus in 2014/15.

“It will remain important beyond then, because we will need to build up sufficient surpluses to provide choices around repaying debt and investing more in priority public services.”

Overall, core Crown tax revenue was $719 million higher than forecast at $37.6 billion for the eight months. Source deductions were $266 million above forecast due to a higher effective tax rate paid by those in the workforce, and tax from other individuals came in $326 million above forecast.

Compared with the eight months to February 2012, tax revenue has increased by $2.2 billion, mainly reflecting wage growth, higher effective tax rates and a rise in GST receipts due to growth in nominal consumption and residential investment.

Core Crown expenses were $370 million below forecast, reflecting broad-based spending control and delays in Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

Higher than expected net gains from Government investment funds delivered a $4.3 billion operating surplus for the eight months, which was significantly better than the $481 million forecast operating deficit.

There is still along way to go but the changes the government has made has New Zealand heading in the right direction again.

Had we had a Labour/Green government after the 2008 and 2011 elections the books would be in a far worse state..

New Zealand was in recession before the global financial crisis because of the Labour led government’s high tax, high spending and debt-fuelled consumption.

The policies it and its potential coalition partner, the Green Party, have championed since the 2008 election show no understanding of what contributed to our problems and the changes needed to solve them.

They’ve opposed every move National has made to reduce spending and promote sustainable, export-led growth.

They continue to promote polices which would take the country back to higher taxes, higher spending and lower growth showing they are still far better fitted for opposition than government.

Act x NZ First

The Focus NZ Party, which began life as the Rural Party, has more than 400 of the minimum of 500 members it needs to register as a political party.

The Focus NZ party, headed by Kerikeri farmer and businessman Ken Rintoul, was formed last year around a group of farmers opposed to big rate increases proposed by the Far North District Council. . .

The policies released so far are something of a grab-bag from across the political spectrum, incorporating some of the philosophy and business-friendly approach of Act with a dose of NZ First’s interventionist economic nationalism. . .

Like some other small parties which have started its policies appear contradictory – it wants to cut taxes, which is a business-friendly policy, but it also favours a new tax on international transactions which is business unfriendly.

It’s also opposed to asset sales which isn’t a pro-business stance either.

Fortunately, its chances of being in a position to translate its policies into practice are slight.

Kiwiblog tables the best election results under MMP for parties that didn’t already have an MP in parliament:

• 99 MPs 0.03%
• ACT 7.14%
• Advance NZ 0.05%
• Animals First 0.17%
• Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis 1.66%
• Asia Pacific United 0.02%
• Bill & Ben 0.56%
• Christian Heritage 2.38%
• Christian Coalition 4.33%
• Conservative 2.65%
• Democrats for Social Credit 0.08%
• Destiny 0.62%
• Direct Democracy 0.03%
• Ethnic Minority 0.12%
• Family Party 0.35%
• Family Rights 0.05%
• Freedom 0.02%
• Future NZ 1.12%
• Green Society 0.11%
• Kiwi Party 0.54%
• Libertarianz 0.29%
• Mana Maori 0.25%
• Mauri Pacific 0.19%
• McGillycuddy Serious 0.29%
• Natural Law 0.15%
• NMP 0.05%
• NZ Conservative 0.07%
• NZ Super & Youth 0.06%
• One NZ 0.09%
• Outdoor Recreation 1.28%
• Pacific Party 0.37%
• People’s Choice 0.02%
• Progressive Greens 0.26%
• RAM 0.02%
• Republic of NZ Party 0.02%
• South Island 0.14%
• Te Tawharau 0.02%
• Workers Party 0.04%

So of those 38 parties, only ACT have made it in. 31 parties have failed to make even 1% and six parties made 1%. Of those six, four were effectively Christian parties, plus ALCP and Outdoor Recreation.

That list includes the Christian Coalition which was led by sitting, and former National, MP Graeme Lee.

To add evidence of just how difficult it is for a new party to gain traction you could add to that list parties formed by or with at least one sitting MP who failed to win a seat at the next election. Among them was ROC, formed by Ross Meurant who left National to form his own party and who is on the board of Focus NZ.

The 500 members required to form a party is a very low hurdle and Focus NZ will probably find enough people to jump that. Succeeding from there is much harder.

Persuading people to vote for a new party which doesn’t have an MP and is contesting the list vote only takes a lot of volunteers, a lot of good publicity and a lot of money.

Focus NZ  could be seen as a threat to National but there are already plenty of options for people who don’t want to vote for it.

The new party is much more likely to take the disgruntled vote from smaller parties which could hurt them but it would be a safe bet that Focus NZ won’t attract enough support to win even one seat in parliament.

Sell Landcorp – Act

Act wants the government to include Landcorp in its asset sales programme.

Associate Primary Industry Spokesman Robin Grieve says:

“ACT believes the Government should not be involved in the business of farm ownership and that 100 per cent of Landcorp should be sold,” Mr Grieve said.

I agree that the government shouldn’t be in the business of farming but National campaigned on selling a minority share in a few state assets and Landcorp wasn’t among them.

For that reason the sale of the company shouldn’t happen this term. The sale could be part of a future campaign but Landcorp shouldn’t be sold as a whole.

Putting the whole company up for sale in its entirety would limit the number of potential buyers to a very few. Most if not all who could afford to pay the more than a billion and a half dollars its worth would be from overseas.

While I’m not opposed to overseas ownership in general it wouldn’t be sensible to structure a sale so that all the farms were almost certain to go to foreign interests.

The only reason for the government to own the farms is to maintain a land bank for treaty settlements.

Once that is no longer needed any farms left in state ownership should be put on the market one by one until they’re all sold.

The company has a good reputation for farm management and its possible that a company making use of that could also be floated.

Act is right that the state shouldn’t be farming but its policy for Landcorp to be sold as a whole would be neither politically nor financially sensible.

It would be easier to sell the policy and ensure a better return for the land by selling the farms individually and over time.

Left don’t have monopoly on caring

The left like to think they have a monopoly on caring but Trans Tasman notes:

Although John Key’s popularity is down from its peak, it is still higher than any of his predecessors in modern times. Equally importantly his Ministers are engaging strongly with their constituencies, leaving few gaps for the Opposition to penetrate. The Govt has sustained a momentum over a range of issues, but more particularly in health, welfare, and law and order which has left no opportunity for the Opposition to identify a parallel universe where they are the party which “cares” for the downtrodden.

Voters generally accept that National is better qualified as economic managers. The party has always found it more difficult to convince them it is on the right track with social policy.

But this government is demonstrating that it has both a head and a heart.

It has increased spending on health and education with zero budgets, is focussed on reducing the long tail of educational failure, made in-roads into long-term benefit dependence, and reduced the number of prisoners and reoffending.

A government with both a head and a heart doesn’t just throw money at problems, it  addresses the causes.

It’s very difficult for an opposition to counter that.

10 factors keep National on top

John Armstrong looks at why National has remained so popular and has come up with 10 factors:

It is possible to list at least 10 potential factors as being responsible, some of which are pretty clear-cut while others are simply untested, gut-feeling hypothesising.

The first factor is Mr Key’s sky-high rating as most preferred prime minister.  . .

Second, his moderate conservatism is in tune with the prevailing mood of the wider New Zealand electorate. . . .

Third, Mr Key is unashamedly pragmatic – a word that used to be anathema to purists who stood four-square behind Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson in the 1980s and early 1990s. No longer. Ideology takes a back seat with Mr Key. There is no lecturing of the public as to the kind of policy prescription that ought to be swallowed. There is instead a ”no surprises” approach, by and large. The Government does what it says it will do. . . .

The fourth factor is the neutralising of troublesome issues, rather than allowing them to linger and fester. . .

Fifth comes the economy. Labour’s recent private polling has confirmed a majority of voters view National as the better manager of the economy.  They are likely to continue to do so in uncertain economic times. Why? Because Mr Key and Bill English have a proven track record in handling crises, like the Christchurch earthquakes, in a calm and unflustered fashion. . .

Sixth, National may have issued various vision documents which have ended up propping up shelves around the Beehive. However, the party is not all that good at articulating those visions. It is good, however, at maintaining momentum. . . 

Seventh, National is still largely defining what the arguments are about across most policy areas. In doing so, it’s halfway to winning those arguments. . .

Eighth, opposition parties are instead still devoting considerable time and effort to fighting battles they have lost – such as partial privatisations – or trying to land hits on National by raking over the coals of history, Solid Energy being the prime example.

Ninth, the public may be getting acclimatised to the at-times rather chaotic nature of minority government. Ms Clark’s third term was marred by constant sideshows and distractions. Mr Key’s second term has been similarly afflicted, but it has not been damaged. . . 

Tenth and last, the political temperature is benign in terms of governing. Apart from asset sales there are few, if any, issues that are seriously divisive and on which National finds itself stranded on the wrong side of the argument for ideological reasons. . .

Crucially, there’s no mood for change, the real government-killer, or even much hint of such a mood developing. National may still lose next year’s election, but only because of an absence of coalition partners. Its real enemy is MMP mathematics. It can’t do much about that.

The reality of MMP maths has not been lost on the government or the party. There is and will be no complacency about the result of next year’s election.

Voters usually give New Zealand governments a second term but it is much, much harder to win a third one. It is even more difficult for National which in MMP terms is a victim of its own success, having attracted voters from potential coalition partners leaves it with fewer possible partners.

WIll it be a bottom line?

In a speech typically high on emotion and rhetoric Winston Peters says:

We will use every ounce of influence after the next election and all the financial measures available to us to buy back Mighty River Power shares at a price no higher than originally paid for them.

The only way he can do this is to make it a bottom line in negotiations over supply and confidence with the party which will lead the next government.

It would mean that New Zealand First makes full state ownership of an energy company a higher priority than schools, hospitals, roads, irrigation and other assets.

It would mean that the party isn’t troubled by the prospect of sabotaging the value of public and private shareholdings and destabilising the share market.

It would mean that if New Zealand First held the balance of power, there would have to be another election.

The re-natonalisation of MRP would be a bottom line National wouldn’t accept.

And although David Shearer hasn’t quite ruled out buying back the shares in Mighty River he knows the cost and it’s one no party which wants to be regarded as a careful steward of the economy could contemplate.

If Peters is making it a bottom line he’s ruling his party out of government.

If he’s not then it’s just another example of his hot air.

 

Lower rate, higher take

The tax and spend Opposition parties weren’t impressed when National made changes to taxes.

But the changes are working as they were meant to:

. . . On the revenue side the Govt is now getting the benefit of its broad-based,low-rate tax regime where the loopholes have been closed off: the consequence is total tax collected on nominal GDP is now running faster than it would have on the old regime. . .

A broad-based lower rate tax regime with loopholes closed is fairer than the punish-the-rich and disicentivise disincentivise-productivity tax policies of the opposition.

They either don’t understand, or don’t care, that lower tax rates can and do lead to higher tax takes.

What a waste

There is never a good time to waste public money but if ever there was a worse time, it’s now.

Our economy is growing, but  slowly, and many or our trading partners are still struggling with the impact of the Global Financial Crisis.

We’ve got the added cost of the Christchurch rebuild,  the need to cut back because of the extravagances and mismanagement of the previous Labour-led government and almost all of the country is facing drought.

There is no fat in the system.

National has been focussed on getting more for less from public services which requires very careful management and fiscal rigour.

The opposition has shown it hasn’t got the seriousness of the problem by opposing every move the government has made to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Now the petition calling for a referendum on the policy to sell minority stake in a few state owned energy companies is to be presented to parliament.

It’s supposed to be a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum but this is a politician’s initiated one.

It was never anything more than a political stunt and carrying on with it now that the sales process for the sale of up to 49% of shares in Mighty River Power has begun reinforces that.

If there are enough valid signatures to force a referendum it will be too late. MRP will be under mixed ownership and at least one of the other companies could be too before it’s held.

Regardless of the timing of the referendum and the partial sales this is an expensive exercise in futility.

National campaigned on its Mixed Ownership Model and won.  The Labour and Green Parties and their potential coalition partners New Zealand First and Mana campaigned against it and lost.

The partial sales are a fundamental part of National’s financial plan and the referendum will do nothing but provide an opportunity for grandstanding by the opposition.

It’s time for them to realise they’ve lost and accept the importance of not wasting public money.

UPDATE:

Keeping Stock shows it’s not just money being wasted.

Does Labour really want to win the Maori seats?

If Labour really wants to win the Maori seats, shouldn’t the party’s Treaty Negotiations spokesperson be on its front bench?

Labour took the Maori seats for granted until it lost them but doesn’t seem to have learned a lesson.

The party also tries to criticise National for its record but Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson met  more settlement milestones in three years than Labour did in nine and he has continued the pace in his second term.

Information not persuasion

This year Maori have the first chance since 2006 to choose whether they’re on the Maori or general electoral roll.

“If you are Maori and on the electoral roll, then this year you get to choose which type of electoral roll you want to vote on,” Enrolment Services national manager Murray Wicks said.

“There hasn’t been a Maori Electoral Option since 2006, so we want to make sure that Maori have access to all the information about the option and what it means before making their decision when the option period begins.

“It’s an important choice, and we want people to be confident to take part.”

The Electoral Commission is bound to present information on the options rather than persuade and says Maori organisation tasked with spreading the word should be strictly impartial.

Kiwiblog noted yesterday that one of those organisations is the Maori Council which is in the midst of legal proceedings against the government.

How impartial will it be?

Other groups, not employed by the Commission are free to persuade and they usually urge people to sign up for the Maori roll.

It would be good to see a campaign explaining the disadvantages of that and the benefits of being on the general roll.

As Tariana Turia said, Maori seats didn’t give Maori a voice:

I think what our people are starting to realise though is that when they voted Maori people into Labour they never got a Maori voice, they got a Labour voice and that was the difference, and they’ve only begun to realise it since the Maori Party came into parliament, because it is the first time that they have heard significant Maori issues raised on a daily basis.

Maori seats not only didn’t give Maori a voice, they gave and continue to give them inferior representation because most of them are too big to service effectively and provide constituents with ready access to their MPs.

Te Tai Tonga covers 161,443 square kilometres - the whole of the South Island, Stewart Island and part of Wellington. Te Tai Hauauru is 35, 825 square kilometres in area, Ikaroa-Rawhiti covers 30,952 square kilometres and Waiariki 19,212 square kilometres.

Maori seats were created when the right to vote depended on the ownership of land. That hasn’t applied for decades and there are now more Maori MPs in general seats and on the lists than representing Maori seats.

This gives them better representation than the Maori electorates which were taken for granted until National invited the Maori Party to be a support partner in government.

Labour/Green crocodile tears

It’s the Opposition’s job to oppose and the Labour and Green parties are particularly good at opposing any initiatives that will lead to investment, growth and jobs:

Once again the hypocrisy of the Labour-Greens opposition is exposed by their criticism today of the need to welcome new business investment in New Zealand, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says.

“Both parties have made it clear that they oppose ‘hands-on’ decisions made by this Government to encourage both domestic and international investment for jobs in the New Zealand economy,” Mr Joyce says.

The list of areas where they have opposed investment separately or together is long and varied. It includes:

• Opposed law changes to allow the Hobbit movies to be produced here
• Opposed resource management law changes to speed up investment decisions
• Opposed the plans to build the Auckland Convention Centre
• Opposed oil & gas exploration on the East Coast
• Opposed hydraulic fracturing
• Opposed the investment by Haier in Fisher & Paykel Appliances
• Opposed speeding up Bathurst Resources consents at Denniston
• Opposed Chinese investment
• Opposed international investment generally
• Opposed tax changes to encourage productive investment
• Opposed increased irrigation and intensification of agriculture
• Opposed moves to lessen the ETS costs on trade-exposed businesses

“Every one of these Government moves, and others, are designed specifically to help grow more jobs in New Zealand for New Zealanders,” Mr Joyce says.

“If we want more jobs in New Zealand, we must be prepared to encourage more investment in this country by both domestic and international investors.

“The Prime Minister has made it clear New Zealand needs to become a magnet for new investment to grow jobs and incomes for New Zealand families. I invite opposition parties to join in with that aim.”

IF the Labour/Green opposition to progress which is only talk is bad, a Labour/Green government which could enact their tax and spend, anti-investment, anti-growth, anti-jobs policies would be far, far worse.